Sunday, July 20, 2014

1945-1946 Elections, Who voted for separate nation Pakistan?

It has been very secular to discuss and research Muslim voting pattern in all election these days, so why not this special election in 1945-46 which was watershed in History of India and history of world? It was most fateful election in India, our mother India's limb were cut off.

While court cases are still going on for Babri structure demolition, not a single enquiry has ever been set to find out who all Indians were involved in creation of Pakistan. Just like entire population of Kashmiri Hindus were wiped out from Kashmir and no politician or other was ever held responsible. Jawahar Lal Nehru hastened to ban RSS which fought for one India but Muslim League (Ally of Congress), Jamat e Islami and all Islamic organisations which lead the blood bath against Hindus were rewarded. Most of Muslim League leaders who stayed in India they soon joined mainstream political parties. I am making feeble attempt to do some justice to India, to Hindus.

BackgroundA falsehood is being cited ad nauseum after independence:"India was divided by British conspiracy and Muslims loved India that's why they stayed in India". If it was so, then why didn't Pakistan or Pakistanis asked to get reunited after independence? Can we unite now? Muslims have not integrated in India society in last 1300 years, and they don't want. It is not their job.

The fatal mistake in attempting to understand partition is to parrot the belief that partition was the fallout of ambitions of Jinnah; a relatively more liberal and, consequently much more ill-informed stance is that it was because of Nehru's and Jinnah's greed. That is not true. The truth is, if anybody bothers to look-up history, that partition was and still is a manifestation of the incompatibility of Islamic beliefs with non-Islamic cultures (Hinduism). When I say still is, then I am obviously also referring to post-independence issues like Kashmir and Hyderabad.

British and Muslims played game against Hindus very cleverly. Wonder why Gandhi and Nehru were given few years of luxurious imprisonment, Jinnah was never imprisoned at all, but Savarkar was given kalapani in Andman. Reason being Jinnah and British were on one side of table, while on the other side they wanted weak leaders who have no foresight but petty and emotional self fooling attitude. Gandhi and Nehru were a good tool in hands of British and Muslim leadership. Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Patel were sought to be kept of the table by any means. Ambedkar was allowed only to the extent that he doesn't harm British and Muslim interests alot.Lahore, Sialkot, western punjab (Pakistan now) produced many revolutionaries, how many of them were Muslim? They were busy making deals with British.

If Indian Muslims were secular, why did they ask for separate electorate? Why did they ask for separate only Muslim can vote constituencies? If they felt insecure, how come they started most of riots even in India's Hindu majority areas? If they felt insecure how come they started direct action day killing ten thousand Hindus in Hindu majority Kolkata? Till the time they are ruler, it is all fine, when it comes to being equal citizens, Muslims demand separate state.

British and Muslims floated idea of separate electorate with agreement from Gandhi, Nehru and Congress etc. That was genesis of Pakistan. They made separate constituencies for Muslims which were to be elected by only muslim voters. 24% Muslims were given 33% seats as reserved, and in the general seats also they can fight elections.

Democracy was distorted by liberal anti-Hindu Hindus, British and Muslims, to the favour of Muslims. Separate Pakistan resolution was passed by All India Muslim League on 23 March 1940, 1945-46 elections were held in this background.

Pakistan was created by a semi-referendum which gave Muslim League rights to negotiate for Pakistan on behalf of Indian Muslims. We Hindus of India and Congress leaders agreed to demand of Pakistan by Indian Muslims.

I consider best test of Muslim intention is their voting pattern. Which we have always consciously chosen not to look at. I am presenting a small summary of facts, which requires deep examination and research.

1945-46 ElectionsI want to attract readers special attention to 1945 - 1946 elections. After independence no research has been done on voting pattern of 1945-1946 provincial elections and central assembly elections.

In 1945 British PM declared elections will be held and constituent assembly will be formed to set new constitution for India. These elections were a referendum for only India or India and Pakistan, i.e. untited or partition. And Muslims choose Pakistan. Creation of Pakistan was done in democratic way, British were just a facilitator like election commission of India is now. All the provinces were given the right to chose whether they want to remain with India or have a separate state based on religion after Muslim League strongly advocated for it. But not even a single Muslim majority provinces decided to stay with India and instead voted for a separate state.

Central Assembly election 1945The Muslim League won every single Muslim seat (30 out of 30, Out of 102 seats, 30 were reserved for Muslims), the “Nationalist Muslims forfeiting their deposits in most instances”. The Muslim League won 86.6 percent of the total Muslims. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah congratulated the Muslims of India for the tremendous victory and termed it as the biggest achievement in the way of Pakistan.

Despite request of Gandhi for United India, and Maulana Aajad being Congress president (1940-1946), all Muslim candidates of Congress lost election. Hence forth Muslim League was considered sole democratic representative of Indian Muslims. Muslim League on behalf of Inidan Muslims, got negotiating power on boundaries of Pakistan. Can we ask Election commission to disown Assauddin Owaisi? No he is elected democratically. Similarily Muslim league was empowered democratically. Congress had agreed to separate electorate and reservation in name of religion for Muslims long ago in 1916. Will any brave will dare to ask himself before elevating Abul Kalam Ajad to leader of Muslims, why he didn't ask Muslims to not ask separate constituencies? Why he couldn't get a single seat for Congress? Whom you will consider representative of India Modi getting 283 MPs (Even though it is only 53%, while ML won 100% seats) or Nitish Kumar getting 2 MPs? Obviously modi. Ajad kept Congress out of balance from inside.

Provincial Elections 1946This was closest to time of independence and partition and you can see the true intention of Indian Muslims in this election.

Muslim league was elected in 429 of 492 reserved seats, with 89.5 % votes, only 4.4% of Indian Muslims voted to Congress in 1946 election. In most of the rest of Muslim reserved seats they voted local fanatic Muslim parties, like Unionist Muslim League Party in Punjab. In total Muslim League got 4555 thousand Muslim votes compared to 276 thousand which congress got (17:1). In Bengal congress got 11 thousand Muslim vote and Muslim got 2032 thousand Muslim votes. Thus Jinnah became sole spokesperson of Indian Muslims.

Percentage usually dont include fact that some Muslims like that of NWFP under Badshah Khan voted for India in 1946 election but in India more than 95% of them voted for Pakistan. Election got cancelled in J&K. Congress got maximum support from NWFP. But later NWFP Muslims voted for Pakistan in a referendum. Overall it is safe to say that at the max 2% of Indian Muslims supported the idea of unified India and forget secularism (Congress concept of unified India was not a secular state but state with special privileges to Muslims like 25% reservation in jobs, Muslim only constituencies). Muslims also supported Jinnah's Direct action day plan and rioted against Hindus everywhere they could afford to.

I would like to make a comparison, even at peak of 1984, Congress received only 49% vote. It is unimaginable what kind of support Muslims had given for Pakistan that Muslim league secured almost 90% votes.

Later on plebiscite was held in Muslim Majority (60% population was Muslim) Syllhat district of Assam, and in NWFP. Even if 15% Muslims had voted for Syllhat to be part of India, it would have been part of India, but it became part of Pakistan.

Do you think that a Muslim living in Muslim majority area are different from those living in non-Muslim majority area?

Do you think Muslim People have changed and they Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrators love India that is why they migrate to India? Do you think Babur hated Farghana and loved India thats why he came to conquer India?

Hysteric popular Support for Pakistan among Indian Muslims

Pakistan movement was lead from mosques, madras, Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia. One can find countless references in books by Pakistani authors, Indians have been very smart in talking very little about it, not mentioning it in History books, lest it asks them to accept some hard inconvenient truth. Jinnah and Allama Iqbal were just faces of Muslim political history, if it was not Jinnah it would have been some Khan or some Ahmed. Riots didn't start after Jinnah become leader of Muslims, riots took place every day since the first Mohammed Bin Kasim invaded sindh. Mopla muslim riots against Hindus 1921 (which Congress has lebelled Mopla rebellion) were not orchestrated by Jinnah or Allama Iqbal. It is just a strategy by pseudo secular parties to put the blame on a unreal Jinnah who was born somewhere in west Punjab and was evil who spoiled mind of good Muslims, and hence they can justify their appeasement policy. Before Jinnah all the invaders like Mohammed Bin Kasim, Taimur, Mahmud and all the rulers Like Allauddin, Aurangjeb were all Jinnah, and Syed Ali Sah Gilani is present Jinnah. We meet the same enemy with different faces throughout history.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, always spoke in the name of 100 million Muslims, not for Muslims of Punjab, Sindh and Bengal. Many speech videos and audio's are recorded available on you-tube. I will put one link herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAx3cxLVAI0&list=PL4Zh3BabiU5V1PYdUogAaM-Dl6Nrj3MB5

These mass meetings of Mohammed Ali Jinnah for Pakistan movement and direct action did not take place in Khaibar Pakhtunwala as most of Hindus would like to believe. These mass gathering too place in Mumbai, Indore, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Patna, Kolkata, Bhopal; each of them attended by lakhs of people. The kind of faith Jinnah enjoyed among Indian Muslims, even Gandhi did not enjoy among non-muslims. To give the account of extent of support for Pakistan among Indian Muslims watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tWIe9aYgE

Jinnah, Liakat Ali Khan themselves were born in India, a fact you may not like to think of or talk about, your wishful thinking would be that they were born in areas which are now Pakistan. Jinnah was elected from Mumbai seat by Muslims of Mumbai.

Watch Tarek Fatah 6:00 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DtIvbxE050

Direct action for creation of Pakistan (killing 5000 Hindus) was started from Kolkata, how come Muslims of Kolkata changed overnight?

Sardar Patel's Kolkata speech is available on you-tube. He asks how come Muslims of India who fought to create Pakistan became patriots just overnight on 14th august 1947?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3HFNqforiM

Every Muslim knew Pakistan is not being created in UP, Bihar, CP, Birar, Kerala, Bombay, still they fought for it, and when they got it, they started speaking different, except in Kashmir, where they can afford to say "Ham Pakistani hain, Pakistan Hamara hai". We have paid price for ignorance, four million lives and we are paying everyday.

On one hand Mohajirs tell in Pakistan, with fond memories of how they taught Hindus a good lesson and created Pakistan. Some of families have one brother going to pakistan and others staying in India. The glory Muslims feel in having torn India forcefully, it is everywhere, read the documents of MQM and pakistani history, Indian have no courage to face those facts. Some of the slogans of Indian Muslims in UP and Bihar

Gandhi had made a vow to die to keep India united, he gave pledge for every possible privilege he could imagine to help Muslims feel like supporting cause of united India. Muslims didn't show any respect to Gandhi. Pakistan movement didn't budge even slightly for Gandhi, had no respect for life and death of Gandhi. Gandhi knew it, so whenever he kept fast unto death, he imposed his conditions only on Hindus. Gandhi used to read Koran in temples to stop partition, while Muslims never allowed him to recited the Gita in mosques. Ironically when Mahatmaji died, Pakistan newspapers said, "the Hindu leader died". Gandhi couldn't get a single seat out of 30, he was not considered representative of all Indians, only representative of non-Muslim Indians. Indian Muslims elected Mohammed Ali Jinnah their representative not Mr. Gandhi. I know personally, how most Indian Muslims abuse and make fun of Gandhi behind and say something else in front of camera. Gandhi was murdered, the day India was partitioned and real culprits are those who divided India against his direst wishes.

Why partition should occur in those areas where Muslims reached 50% of the total population or more? Wherever Muslim populations cross 50% mark, the localized area becomes a non-secular Islamic territory. This holds true not just for large states or cities but also for smaller localities and townships. Once while travelling from the Howrah Station to Parnasree in Kolkata, a Taxi driver said to me that he never takes passengers for the Khidderpore no matter what they are willing to pay. Such an atmosphere of mistrust does exist and those who feel that politics is responsible for it are actually less-informed. Politics is only an expression of social dynamics for the sake of power and governance.

Why Muslims stayed in India, after creating Pakistan? No one shifts unless he is pushed and thrown out.

The mood in India in the 1940s was one of deep divisions as the Muslim League was the overwhelming recipient of the Muslim vote while the Congress by and large got the Hindu vote. Yet, within a decade, by the 1950s, the Congress had ended up becoming the number one choice of India’s Muslims as majority of leaders of Muslim League overwhelmingly supporting Pakistan, stayed in India and joined Congress as "nationalist Muslim ".

1) Safety and Socio-economic reason: It was not as many assume because they were secular, or at least such a generalization cannot be made for all Muslims that stayed back, for if it were true, independent India would have never again had a communal riot which are almost all started by muslims. The simple reason was that it was the Muslims who were applying pressure for a separate Islamic homeland and not the Hindus. As Hindus weren't really concerned with a explicitly Hindu homeland, they did not force the Muslims to leave.

Socio-economic conditions play important role in decision making. Sometimes, this factor solely affects the decision. Leaving all your property and migrating to an unknown land and starting all over again is not something most can do. A person's venture is giving him high returns, and his base has strengthened at a particular place from long time. He will not leave his achievements all of a sudden and pack his bag unless he has a back up in other place. If a person Muslim or not is asked to relocate, without the promise of better or at least equal employment, that person will not take unnecessary risk in state of poverty. Hindus didn't ask their neighbours to relocate, in most cases they even requested to stay back, my own village in Bihar is example and that happened in most of villages. Majority of Muslims were certain that nothing will happen to them if they stay in India.

1.0 % Hindus who she their sister getting abducted and live as third class citizens in Pakistan dont live their because they have love with Pakistani system and they love their daughters getting abducted in broad day light (There were three Hindu Majority districts in Sindh: Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas and Amarakot, 1% Hindus are mostly in this area only. Rest of Pakistan was Auschwitz camp for Hindu and Sikh, they simply had to run to save life). They live because they cant afford sometime, sometime they cant dont want to leave their house, their bread and nothing good awaits them in India, secular govt of India treats Hindus as enemy, no food, shelter is given in most cases (Only Rohangia and Bangladeshi and families of deceased Kashmiri militants are entitled to that).

Do you think 20 million Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrated because they love India not Bangladesh? or opposite that they can make Assam and West Bengal next Bangladesh?

2)Some other points were raised by Islamic organizations in India. They were not happy with the size of Pakistan, so they claim they have right to stay in India even if they voted for Pakistan.

3) They wanted whole India to be an Islamic State. They dont consider India as alien land but their property. Once a Muslim guy said to me, "Whatever you do, India is ours, we have ruled India in past and we will rule in future also".

4) Some Muslims were too poor to afford to move to Pakistan, Mahmud Madani, had indicated somewhere (though not said) that despite of willing to go to Pakistan, many of them could not manage to reach Pakistan due to geographical and economical reasons!! In those days travelling was not very comfortable, south Indian Muslims could have to travel long distances, their language was different in many instances. Consider travelling 2500 km from Kerala or Tamilnadu to Pakistan on bull cart.

Some were waiting for violence to stop and some stayed to see which country offers better economics, certainly it was India which had more opportunities.They knew that India would be politically more stable and economically better off than Pakistan, so they decided to stay in India. Observe their hypocrisy, they want to create Pakistan, but do not want to leave India. Why are Muslims migrating in large numbers to North America and Europe but very few Muslims are migrating to North Africa or Islamic countries. It is again because they wish to take advantage of the better economic system in other countries and at the same time carry out one or two terrorist attacks whenever they have the leisure.

5) Many well to do Muslims also didn't move and even when they moved then it was like one brother moved to Pakistan whereas another stayed in India. Indian Muslims after partition, "Tu bhai pakistan dekh ke aa, mai yahan kheti bari samhalta hun". The idea was to eliminate all the Hindu population through genocide and then to attack India (Kashmir war immediately started). The 1965 war intention was also to capture the whole of India and make it an Islamic nation. Indian Muslims are expected to help them and eliminate/enslave all Hindus.

“Muslim migrants from India to Pakistan had expressed” their future hopes in this slogan:

“हंस कर लिया पाकिस्तान , लड़ के लेंगे हिंदुस्तान"

(hass kar liya Pakistan, lad ke lenge Hindustan)

6) Both Gandhi and Nehru started forcing/begging Muslims not to leave India. Since Nehru was not an elected PM and he always knew that people will prefer Sardar Patel in the next election, he thought of using Indian Muslims as vote bank. Nehru said he would resign if Muslims from India who voted for Pakistan move there.

Nehru immediately changed his position from making India a secular state (which was decide in 1945 and reason for partition) to a religious state with Muslims having upper hand. He refused to implement Uniform Civil Code to convince Muslims to stay here.

7) Nehru signed in 1950 agreement with Liaquat to stop the migration of people from both sides and which nullifies the Two Nation Theory (forced by Sheikh Abdullah and Abdul Kalam Azad). One million muslims returned from east Pakistan to India, hundreds of thousands returned from Pakistan to UP and Bihar, but no Hindu or Sikh could go back to return to Pakistan. Many congress leader opposed it and some had even resigned. This led to coming of Jan Sangh which is now know as BJP.

Also note that Pakistan closed border in 1952, migrations to Pakistan were stopped so any Mulsim wanting to migrate to Pakistan after 1951 had to go through a lot of red tape.

Maulana Azad, was congress president between 1940 to 1946 and first HRD minister of India, his main aim was to save Muslim interests in India after partition. His influence as first HRD minister on history books and institutions is still there. Even after partition, he shamelessly maligned Hindus for partition riots. Maulana Azad made no appeal or effort to save non-muslims in muslim areas. He had actively propagated that Indian Muslims should do Jihad in India to establish Khalifat in Turkey in 1920s. His biography and speeches makes one feel that he wanted to see entire India a Islamic country in near future. Some Muslim organization like Jamat-e-Islami were more clear that they will try to get entire India in near future.

Azad did not want to loose this vast land, which was once ruled by Muslims. In 1945-46, he did not get a single seat for Congress, he was in Congress only to save Muslim interest in India. "Interest of Muslims of India was in United India, they should have been more stronger in Continent and partition was mistake". Unity and human values appear nowhere, to be in United India or not to be, only for sake of Muslims/Islam. He saw united India as a biggest country of Muslims in the world and source of Muslim political clout. See from you tube comments on his speeches that many Indian Muslims regret the fact that they dont enjoy that power now, which they could have enjoyed if they were 50 crores in one country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GUkb_HTFW8After independence he worked very hard so that Muslims don't go to Pakistan, planned for return of those who already left. His address in Jama Masjid 1948 is one of those attempts.

Maulana Azad worked inside Cabinet to favor Pakistan in all practical matters. He and Nehru were behind Liaqat -Nehru Pact to bring back all Muslims who left India in wake of partition riots. Not a single Hindu returned to Pakistan while one million Muslims returned back to India.

Maulana Azad and Jakir Huessein did a lot of propaganda in September- October 1947 instigating that Muslims are being forced to leave India while there is no place in Pakistan. They worked in tandem with Liaqat ali Khan, first PM of Pakistan. Tradition continued later also when Muslim ministers of Indira Gandhi asked her not to intervene in 1971, even when 3 million bengalis (80% Hindu) were slaughtered by Pakistan army.

Maulana Azad being first HRD minister worked with Nehru to destroy all historical evidence about Muslim atrocities on Non Muslims during 1100 years of Muslim rule and Partition. Any leader who opposed Nehru or his pro-Muslim policies were decimated.

If you dont read the fact that Muslims voted for Pakistan, it is also because Maulana Azad did not want you to read. Have you heard that Maulana Azad went to Noakhali or Lahore to appeal Muslims not to kill Hindus?

Muslim Attitude towards India and HindusIn 1947, we agreed to Muslim demand of separate country, to forget subhuman killings and rapes of millions of non-Muslims, agreed to land share equal to their share in population, did any Pakistani say thanks? No. We agreed to forget that Muslims of India were at forefront of creating Pakistan, did Muslims who stayed in India thanked us or at-least have they been loyal to India? No. They are trying to finish the rest of work, to completely wipe out non-Muslims in Indian continent.

Bangladesh

We helped Bangladesh with money, men and hearts during and after their war of independence. In fact all Hindus had 20% share in population and had 80% share in death during 1971 war. Hindu population dropped from 18.5% to 13% after war. Did Bangladeshis say thanks? No. They followed Pakistan in their policy against Hindus.

Watch the video 18:55Bangladeshi clap with same fervour as Pakistanis would do when Indian batsman is out in India Pakistan match in Dhaka.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tNFbu9X220

82 % of Bangladesh people favour Islamic law. still Indians wish to believe bangladesh is liberal country. just because they didn't have a poet and they used rabindranath tagores aamar sonar bangla.

Voting Pattern after PartitionVoting pattern of Muslims is same now as during partition time. Below is seat-wise detail of electoral choice Muslims make in 10 Muslim majority seats out of 543 Loksabha seats in India.

Old Hyderabad (1 seat) : AIMIM, inheritors of Rajkar army, they have made their fanatic agenda amply clear. Many videos available on youtube. They have always expressed their desire to make India Islamic country.

Kashmir (3 seats): PDP and National Conference (previously Muslim Conference) both have supported Jihad and eliminated 5 Lakh Hindus from Kashmir. None of them want their return.

Assam (2 seats): AIDUF is based on Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators and is actively engaged in all kind of anti-national activity at India Bangladesh border.

Kerala (2 seats): Muslim League, League has a long history of communal agenda, In 1921, Malabar Muslims killed 5000 or more Hindus. Muslim League in kerala celebrated victory of Nawaj Sharif who lead Muslim League Pakistan (N).

Murshidabad (1 seat) : Always Congress, show me one MLA from murshidabad who can speak against Bangladeshi infiltration or ISI. Many ISI agents and fake currency comes to India through Murshidabad, Kishanganj borders.

No wonder all elected representatives from these constituencies are always found stretching away from India to demand of one more separate nation every often.

Relevant Questions and Answers to the people

(1) Show me a more than a handful of Muslims, who says it was wrong to vote for Pakistan.

(1) (A)Indian Muslims wanted and rioted to establish Khaliph in turkey against wishes of Turkish people who wanted democracy (remember that Khalif was responsible for genocide of 1.5 million Armenian people). None of Indian Muslims have family relation with Turkish people. But half of Indian Muslims do have family relation with some Pakistani. Will they write a letter to Pakistani relatives to return India her lost limb, we dont believe in two nation theory, it was a mistake to vote for Pakistan? Inconvenient? While it is so convenient to burn India for something in Myanmar.

(2) Show me who feels Kashmir genocide (which started before political turmoil of 1990) was wrong and he will go to Kashmir to help Kashmiri pandits resettle, or if it is not allowed then he will issue a fatwa against Kashmiri Muslims, or they will boycott Kashmiri Muslims. They say about lot of practical inconvenience. Ask why it is so convenient for them to put whole country on fire on a small issue, but so inconvenient to speak in case of Kashmir.

I am always astonished, how Muslims in minority always claim to be secular and try to say they have nothing to do with genocide committed in Muslim majority areas. Have you heard a Hindu behaves differently in India and differently when he settles in USA? This magic only happens when they are in minority.

(3) Show me who feels sorry for 800 years of atrocities committed on Hindus. None of them will accept that their ancestors were Hindu and were forcibly converted. (Elliot:History of India as written by own historians).

(5) Show me muslims who say it is wrong to Cheer pakistan and celebrate pakistan victory. I remember from my childhood 90% muslims celebrated Pakistan victory against India in my hometown Bihar Sharif. If India wins we fired crackers, when pakistan won, we saw crackers coming from Muslim mohalla.

(6) Show me a single muslim who says Quran verses which ask muslims to consider non-muslims as permanent enemy and asks for their death, should be removed. And "Allah give Muslims victory against Kafirs " should be removed from Jumma prayer.

(7) Show me Muslims who feel sorry for genocide of 3 million Hindus in 1971 and one million in 1947. It was on their behest that Pakistan was created and all the genocide took place.

(8) Show me a single Pakistani friend (because many of you have Pakistani friends), do they condemn two nation theory? Ask your Muslim friends do they condemn Pakistan.

(9) Ask one Muslim friend to use Hindi instead of Arabic in their marriage card, they will use English but Hindi never.

(10)Some people will give name of personalties, who were pro India. Just ask them to bring those personalties to rehabilitate Hindus in Kashmir. They are badly needed there. Those personalties should contest election from Srinagar or Hyderabad against Owaisi and come up victorious. Just using sweet talk for double bargain doesn't help.

(11) Some muslims say they were feeling insecure because of Hindus in India, if they were feeling insecure then how did they stay after partition? If there was insecurity then why didnot they ask means for security? Why instead they went on killing Hindus.

If Muslims were Ruled India for 1000 years then why they made Pakistan?? Hindus didnot ask separation even after 1000 years of slavery and torture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyNvHUvsf2k

Just see video footage of yakub memon funeral, same day APJ Kalam sahab funeral was also there, but there crowd was mostly Hindu. Obviously APJ Kalam is not hero of muslims but Yakub Menon. APJ Kalam and such personalties are only used for deception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_1SW7riKjA

All invaders, and terrorists (Yakub menon gathered 30,000 people, each terrorist in Kashmir gathers 20-50,000 for funeral) are heroes of Muslims as they even claim live on TV and everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cSH5YbZyi9Y

(11) Some people suggest what is problem, it is just like division of class you stay in IV A, IV B, while you vote for a concept that class should be divided and a new section should be formed, but then you dont go into new section. In your school Class IVB is not created with sole purpose to permanently keep harming career of class IV A kids. I think these peaceful minds can help resolving Arab Israel conflict. They should be sent to console the widows of ten thousand army-men who have sacrificed their life for protecting Kashmir.

It is a breach of trust, not choosing candies or chocolates. They should welcome their wife/husband with open arms when he/she comes after after sleeping with neighbour, and should not ask a single question. After all it is just about choosing candies and chocolates.

You can talk of virtues of such sacrifice, when all you sacrifice is a goat, not a single drop of blood from your own body. Four million who were killed were not your people because your patriotism is show off, your actions are limited to welfare of your son, daughter, brother, sister. The way media pressitutes do...To such hypocrites, I have answered in this question. Manish Shrivastava's answer to Why is the media against the Modi government?

(12) If we talk of present tense instead of past, I dont see any Muslim patriot in Kashmir. Why they will risk themselves in rest of India when they are much less in numbers. I dont see Indian Muslims opposing Kashmiri Muslims in their action.

Muslims play double game. On one hand they enjoy how the the invaders shown Hindus their position ("Hukumat ki hai hamne 800 salo tak hindustan par","Aukat dikha di in Hinduon ko, inki jagah pe lake rakh diya"), on other hand they play victim card in front of camera, both together. Wishful thinking of an Indian Muslim is always that he is an Arab.

(13) Some people will ask, " you are asking me to kill Muslims, I would never do that". This is typical emotional blackmail. I would never ask that. So much afraid they are of facts. I am talking about people who have already been killed, and who are being killed everyday in Kashmir, not hypothetical should and would.

Just ask these facts to a Muslim, see how instead he will start showing his real face, he will do anything but wont address a single fact.

I am not blaming every individual Muslim, but I am stating fact about majority of Muslims. I respect Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Mokhtar Abbas Naqbi, Arif Mohammed Khan, and APJ Kalam. But I think none of them would object to facts. Tarek Fatah himself has raised this voting fact several times. Abdul Gaffar Khan refused to be buried in Pakistan, he didn't change his stance, he was pro India before and after partition, till his death.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ConclusionMy conclusion is, you cannot expect any pluralistic party or leader to win election in a Muslim majority seat.

The fate of Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Muslim voting pattern everywhere before independence and after independence are very clear in massage. If they come to power, or their numbers surge to even 50% in any area, they will eliminate all Non-Muslims there, democracy will aid in elimination of non-Muslims.

Book By Dr Ambedkar "Pakistan or Partition of India" written in 1945 is worth reading for the facts.

See opinion of Kashmiri muslims in an opinion poll conducted in 1995.

Congress President Sonia Gandhi is vice-president of an organization which promotes the cause of separate Kashmir.

We elected her Congress Party almost 60 years after independence. It says something about us, how blind Hindus can become in their electoral choice and how ignorant they are. Using democracy to cut their own feet.

A very interesting video, if you still trust Muslims? Most of them will provide information to ISI without taking any money if there is no risk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS0G5L8nKSw